Monday, August 08, 2005

The divide between Right and Left in this country is becoming a chasm. It is a divide across the spectrum of problems facing the country as we gear up to confront what is to be done about terrorism, immigration, the hazards of our poorly policed borders, and the immense work of integrating functional new citizens into our culture.

The Left ought to be closed for repairs. All their wonderful theories, put into practice to address unfairness and inequality, have metastasized into monsters which they can no longer treat, remove, or contain. Persevering on, they draw up proposals full of outmoded solutions to address their invented “issues.” Meanwhile the band plays on as they ignore the failed results of their previous bungled attempts at social and economic engineering.

The Left never met a difficulty they couldn’t transform into an eternal entitlement or a national threat.

The Left is guilds and unions and tenure. It is playing by rules that were made up by children in the 1960’s — children led by anarchists and charlatans from the wastelands of the 1930’s. Those overgrown kids who aren’t dead due to overindulgence or self-inflicted wounds are riding the rails explaining why they weren’t wrong and why this is Vietnam redux.

Due to its many failures, the Left has become exquisitely sensitive. This is the result of their ongoing experience of incompetence. To fail repeatedly is to live in shame and the only rememdy is to isolate with others of similar background. Shame, in turn, dulls curiosity and leaves one less open to the novel or the untried. The capacity for uncertainty atrophies. It is here you can spot the similarity they have with terrorists and other borderless people.

Thus, weaving a thin veneeer of “inclusiveness” the Left makes the rules for membership within its ivoried towers all the more stringent, narrow and dogmatic. Truth is not reality-based. Rather, what is true is what feels right. The belief in victimization, the certainty of being superior due to one’s uniqueness, and fidelity to the concept of Utopia are all necessary qualifications for membership.

The Left does not act; it thinks and then it acts against. Absolute in its certainty about global warming and the industries that it claims promote catastrophe, the Left distrusts business, especially successful, large corporations. Walmart is evil. The military is primitive; it chews up and spits out minorities and the marginalized. Rumsfeld is evil. Government is despicable except when addressing social or economic unfairness or raising the necessary monies to do so.

Peace is lack of conflict; peace is “understanding.” Pursuing peace would never entail vigorous action in the face of aggression. In fact, aggression — except in mass demonstrations that lead to nothing but narcissistic catharsis — is among the mortal sins of the Left. And so Bush is evil. Passive aggression, on the other hand, is cool and acceptable. Lying down in front of a tank, for instance, is an act worthy of canonization. Ghandi would curl his lip at their self-indulgent histrionics.

Above all, the Left is afraid. It preached a global famine that failed to materialize. Nuclear Holocaust was a poison fruit nurtured for decades only to vaporize like a city in one of the prevailing “morning-after” disaster stories. Even the Population Bomb proved to be a dud. And the prediction of the end of fossil fuels timed to coincide with the millenium, as intoned by Jimmy Carter? That myth ran out of gas, too. Every piece of dogma that the Club of Rome, the Greens, and the Leftist nay-sayers repeated to the point of insensibility — every page is at the bottom of the canary cage, including the benefits society would reap from giving money to single mothers.

But now the most beloved of all their myths is disintegrating. Women’s bodies are not their own. They thought they were, they wanted this to be so, and thus because it felt right, it was true. "Anatomy is destiny" was an evil Freudian lie. Freedom to choose; abortion on demand; I have my rights: what could be more American, more feminist? And in that, they are absolutely correct. We are all free to choose.

However, there is a caveat and it is usually written in fine print somewhere in the middle of the page. Choose what you will, but always look under the bed for the corollaries. Choices have consequences.

One of the consequences of abortion is an increased risk of breast cancer. The highest risk groups are girls 18 and under and women over 30. In each category, where there is a family history of breast cancer, the increase in risk of breast cancer for these two groups is more than 100 %.

Oops--[NOTE and hat tip to the mathematically literate: this is a one hundred percent increase in risk. There will be an updated post later outlining the actual risk table for young girls with the BRCA gene who have never carried a pregnancy to term and who undergo abortion]. Meanwhile, certain subsets of the female population who have electively interrupted abortions have an increased risk more than two hundred per cent higher than the female population at large. Thus, thank you Shrinkwrapped and Solomon2, et al. for the needed correction in language and understanding.

How does the Left confront this disturbing news? Suppression. Refusing to look at it or to let others know about it. Denial is one of the strongest of the defenses used by this group to manage unpleasant truths. And since the gatekeepers of the media are largely Leftists, the information simply doesn’t see the light of day. Or it is “refuted” by large segments of the abortion industry and the breast cancer business.

In many doctors’opinions the media cover-up and silence in the face of the consequences of abortion is going to have far-reaching effects on the cohort of boomers who have widely used and promulgated abortion as a “right” — almost as a holy obligation to the creed of the unfetttered and free.

One scientist who questions this cover-up has the credentials to do so. Joel Brind, Ph.D., is a professor of human biology and endocrinology at Baruch College, City University of New York and president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute. He has taken on the politically correct received opinions of the feminist abortion/breast cancer consortium.

Brind dismisses two highly-publicized sources which deny any ABC connection. One is a study by Oxford University scientists published by the Lancet in 2004; the other is the stand the National Cancer Institute has taken on the issue. Both the study and NCI make strong claims for the contention that there is no link between abortion and an increased risk for breast cancer.

Wrong, says Brind:

"The trouble is, to accept this conclusion, one needs to dismiss almost half a century's worth of data which do show a significant link between abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer…”

“[D]enial of the ABC link has become the party line of all major governmental agencies (including the World Health Organization), mainstream medical associations (including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists) and the most prestigious medical journals (including the New England Journal of Medicine)."

Brind presents his refutation with a list of studies, beginning with one in Japan in 1957 which found a threefold increase in breast cancer in those women who had had abortions. In 1979, the World Health Organization sponsored a Harvard study, the results of which showed, in perfect Science-speak, a disturbing trend "in the direction which suggested increased risk associated with abortion – contrary to the reduction in risk with full-term births."

The WHO Bulletin was ignored -- eventually even by WHO itself. So was a subsequent study two years later at the University of Southern California. Here, women who had an abortion before carrying a child to term increased their risk of breast cancer by 2.4 fold over those women who did not abort.

Brind has further points to make, points we didn’t hear — and won’t hear if the mandarins in charge of the abortion clinics continue to hold sway:

Brind points out that the connection went beyond statistics. Scientists were conducting laboratory research on reproductive endocrinology. They documented the incredible rise of estrogen and progesterone in the first trimester of pregnancy. Further, they studied the short-lived rise of these same hormones in spontaneous abortions (miscarriages). According to Brind, these findings explained why miscarriage did not correlate with an increased risk of breast cancer: During the 1980s and 1990s, Brind asserts that study after study – in Japan, Europe and the U.S. – continued to report significant increased breast cancer risk in women who had an induced abortion.

"By 1994, six epidemiological studies out of seven in the United States, on women of both black and white ethnicity, had reported increased risk with induced abortion," he writes.

Then in 1994, Janet Daling and colleagues of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle published a study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute showing a 50 percent increase in the risk of breast cancer among women who had chosen abortion. It also showed an increase of more than 100 percent for women who had an abortion prior to the age of 18 or after age 30. The risk was compounded for those who had family histories of breast cancer.

So what happened? Were we out of the room when the MSM was blasting the headlines? Did we not buy the newspaper that year? Did we let our Ms. magazine subscription expire? Well…not exactly. According to Brind when the study was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the editor took the unusual step of sandbagging the study. Dr. Lynn Rosenberg, a radical supporter of abortion on demand for minors said, among other things, that:

"... the overall results as well as the particulars are far from conclusive, and it is difficult to see how they will be informative to the public." Rosenberg even speculated the study may have been faulty because of "reporting bias" that generated false positive results.

Brind warns that the only remedy for the cover-up, denial, and downright dissembling of the abortion industry and the breast cancer business is an independent media. Without that the public will never be allowed to know about the significant and increasing evidence piling up against abortion as a healthy choice, now or ever. There will be no opportunity to learn of the links between abortion and subsequent premature births in later pregnancies, not to mention the frequent occurrence of cerebral palsy in these babies. Brind again:

"Many adjectives may be used to properly describe induced abortion, but 'safe' is assuredly not one of them," he concludes. "The day will surely come when this is common knowledge, and for every day sooner that this happens, thousands of lives may be saved."

This is America, after all, so we know the likely ending. Litigation. Lawsuits over and over again until the abortion industry finally throws in the bankruptcy towel. To get the flavor of the story, think tobacco companies.

Meanwhile, here is a rent in the curtain: in Portland, Oregon, a clinic settled out of court rather than face the publicity a trial would have brought to bear on current abortion practices. The young woman whose case was heard in January 2005, was fifteen at the time of her abortion; she had indicated on her medical history that there was breast cancer in her family. No one ever gave her any information about the ABC link. Her chances -- i.e, her increased risk --of getting breast cancer went up to the point that she will no doubt choose to do what many women in her situation are doing: undergo elective double mastectomy and an oophrectomy to avoid cancer of her reproductive organs. How's that for a future at the age of 18?

Another Utopian dream -- woman freed of her anatomic destiny -- is going to vanish in death and indignity. In fact, given their penchant for finding victims and bad news, this twist in the tale is particularly ironic for the believers themselves.

But for as long as they continue their death grip on the media, for that long more women will be set up to die for someone else's dogma. Eventually, though, Roe v. Wade will go the way of Dred Scott and Mao's Little Red Book. It will be made irrelevant by reality.

44
comments:

There are a number of risk factors for cancer. These factors have a weight -- for example, the age of menarche is not as important as if you carry one of the BRCA genes, or --less risk -- if you have a history or any cancer in your family. And childlessness is an increased risk. So is the age at which you had your first child. So is taking hormone replacement therapy.

The BRCA gene is *the* most important risk factor. Huge. Now, after BRCA is appears that for these women an abortion between 11 and 30 (there have been some as young as that --I had occasion to meet one doing social work. I thought she was luckier than the 11 y.o. who carried to term, but I see I was wrong)is a death warrant.

Until now, none of the risks would've added to more than a hundred...it requires combining age, first pregnancy and the BRCA gene.

But age by itself, remember, does increse the risk three-fold.

And I didn't even get into the studies they're doing on the psychological sequelae. Studies no one wants to report.

Don't know about the biology and anatomy, but I sure liked it when the lefties were running around talking about Blue State secession.

With secession they could leave, or we could and the lefties could go join Canada or set up their own banana republic and abort themselves till they were blue in the face; have their fraud Supreme Court and whatever so-called Constitution they wanted; worship Wicca the UN, Europa or what/who ever, make a Lincoln Memorial for Michael Moore and we woudn't have to worry about why lefties are anatomical and social freaks.

Boy, this post really struck a nerve with me. I read this, and Christopher Hitchens's little piece in Slate asking, rhetorically, if the Left really wants us to lose in Iraq. Of course, Mr. Hitchens never explictly answered his question, because of course, we all know the answer, which is of course that they do.

All of what Dymphna says in her post is true: about the left being built on guilds and rules and tenure and now, sensitivity to its failures. Given the problems confronting us as a people: terrorism, immigration, plus the rise of China and our own fiscal bankruptcy, I think the chasm mentioned in the first sentence is going to lead to a hell of a crash one day. Spain had one of those in the 1930's.

Repeated failure leads to the desire for failure. It's what you know. That's why the fevered hopes for the Afghan Winter, the famine that never happened, the quagmire, the slaughter made out of whole cloth, the skewed information on the military demographics...they failed and success galls them.

The fact that their childish tantrums created the failure in Vietnam -- snatching defeat from the jaws of victory -- is not information they are willing to let past the filter.

That's why, when one finally begins to see the little man behind the curtain (as I did when I began with a conversion in my understanding of economics), it all crumbles...

For some it is a metanoia. For others, the turn is more like trying to move the Titanic in time to avoid the iceberg...

Thank you for the explanation, Dymphna. I do not have the grasp of these matters that you do, but if I did, I would write to Sen. Barbara Mikulski, who - despite being a Democrat (Md.) - takes a keen interest in female-specific health research.

There's a difference between "a 100% risk of breast cancer" and "a 100% increase in the risk of breast cancer." A 100% increase just means it doubled, and that may be from 1% to 2%. I don't think the study showed that ALL women who have abortions get breast cancer. It just showed that the risk is increased.

THANK YOU for posting this very important information.Regardless of where someone stands politically the fact that women are opening themselves up for this kind of future danger to their own health isurgently need to know.Please keep updating this news. I intend on sharing this with my off the internet women friends.

The BRCA genes (1 and 2) alone make it almost a certainty you will be living life without your breasts well before menopause. Some women with that kind of genetic Damocles' sword hanging over them have *elective* double mastectomies before cancer has a chance to set in and metastasize. BRCA can be silent and aggressive.

When you add to this an abortion BEFORE carrying a pregnancy to term and you've reached menarche but are not yet 19, or you are over the age of 30, you can hang it up. That poisonous decision is a sentence to life without your breasts.

As a breast cancer survivor, I take the statistics seriously, but I also parse them. By the end of this year, I will be one of those 5 year survivors. I am confident I'll make it because my breast cancer was brought on by the use of hormones -- I was attempting to both stabilize my hormones to reduce migraines and to avoid the heart problems that run in my family.

And then the researchers said "oops..sorry. Hormone replacement therapy doesn't protect against heart disease. It was a good theory, but we were wrong. At least we got to test it out on you all. Win some, lose some."

Needless to say, I stopped using HRT as soon as I was diagnosed.

That doesn't mean that another five years down the road cancer won't show up. I am now more vulnerable than I was before HRT.

As for statistical likelihood being more than one hundred percent: if you give factors certain weights and then new factors are introduced, you could well run beyond a hundred percent total...

Again, there are four critical factors here:

1. Not having had a full-term pregnancy2. Aborting a fetus.3. Having a close female relative with breast cancer4. Being younger than 18 or older than thirty.

With respect Dymphna, and this is a very interesting and important post, it is illogical to say that there is more than a 100% chance that something will happen. 100% is as certain as we can get. When you add up the various factors for cancer, remember that just because a and b may each indicate a 30% risk does not mean that having both you have a 60% chance. They might combine as a 45% risk. It is a problem of distinguishing necessary and sufficient causes, which is something I don't think we have done yet with cancer. If say 50% of people are predisposed to something, and there can be a number of triggers, if you are one of those 50%, then the more triggers the deadlier (though you can't go above 100% certainty); but if you are not one of those 50%, firing the triggers may not be as deadly for you.

Well, maybe you're right about the fellows. I recently had a prostate infection that was a little scary before all the tests were done. I happened to see two doctors. The first told me, no ejaculations until the infection and swelling is well gone, because the muscles or something need rest. When I had a chance to see my regular doc, he said, clean out the system, get all the old semen and the bacteria out. The other guy is wrong. I didn't know who to follow, but i wasn't sure who to follow, but I didn't feel like quibbling.

That's medical opinion as pontification. Isn't it amazing? Go read NIH or the Cancer Institute on prostate cancer and the statistics, treatments, etc. And then do your own research. It will be a sobering experience.

A few years ago I edited a book for a family doc in Vancouver (we almost killed one another over politics, but never mind). He'd done the research and has opted for NO treatment.

Thanks for your concern; I don't think I have cancer. I just had a bacterial infection, but at first I didn't know what it was which was scary. Plus the contrasting opinions/doubts on whether I was any risk to my lover.

I never thought you *did* have cancer. I was just saying you ought to read ahead in the book. The longer you live, the higher your chances. Upon autopsy many -- maybe even a majority of -- men are found to have had p.cancer cells but no evidence of it while they were alive.

Meanwhile, selenium C and E have some protective benefit...according to some studies, anyway. The whole thing is a crapshoot.

Yes, maybe it's time to do some research. But of course so many of us have trouble focussing on these questions, we just don't want to think about it. I wonder how much this influences the unwillingess to talk about the risks of abortion, in contrast to the unwillingness being a strictly ideological pro-choice attitude. After all, many of the people in responsibility today have probably had abortions or encouraged their partners and friends in having them.

Without seeing the raw data and the actual language of the studies, I suspect the increase in risk of 100% means a doubling of the risk, as stated by doppelganglander. If so, this is still a pretty impressive statistic which will cause an awful lot of people to rethink abortion. An increase in risk of a heart attack from ~1% to ~2% took Vioxx off the market. If the statistics are accurate, that an abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, it will be one more nail in the "sexual revolution" (which started with the pill) and might get a lot of people to think more seriously about their sexual lives. It will also change the dynamics of the abortion argument (which is rapidly changing anyway; we have done the experiment, and like so many liberal social experiments, it was a disaster). I do not think that significant results like this can be successfully suppressed anymore. Eventually the truth finds its way into the blogs, from there to some in the media, to the politicians, etc. The MSM/Left no longer controls the information flow, so eventually the unknown % of the population who can respond to reality will notice. Once a threshold is reached, change will follow.

It would be extremely elegant if the plaintiffs bar put Sanger's eugenics/population control entity out of business. What you are describing is institutional medical malpractice. Abortionists have a duty to provide all potential negative outcomes as part of obtaining informed consent regarding medical procedures.

The potential liability for willful misinformation or provision of incomplete information regarding potential negative outcomes is enormous. I'm not sure that the normal class action bar would leap at this - after all they depend on the victimhood purveyors to provide the shield for their plundering.

There are reputable attorneys in the PI business and this information creates a class with great potential.

Have you discussed this with any PI attorneys or class action firms yet?

I admit a dark thought that ocurred as I read your piece: that gatekeepers with their own pro-abortion agenda wished to suppress the studies that link abortion and breast cancer (so far your article supports this) while behind the scenes pushed for a remedy to the situation through abc breast cancer research, so that in the end the woman could "have her cake, and eat it too." (An un-appetizing figure of speech, but so is this whole business.) As it is just a thought perhaps I'll ask whether you know how much of breast cancer funding and research is directed to abc breast cancer? Or is that distinction even meaningful?

My supposition is not unthinkable if 1) this is an open secret among scientists who support abortion and who determine how funds are spent, or 2) one comes to believe that for many the end justifies the means. And I know a bit about Margaret Sanger. The means being, in this case, as Rick Ballard wrote, the suppression of informed consent regarding medical procedures. I'm reminded of the song the mother sings on Mary Poppins, "Our daughters' daughters will adore us, as they sing in grateful chorus, well done, well done, sister suffragettes." The women the feminists are supposedly helping through abortion have to pay the price for the brave new world of the future generations, which history proves to be a component of the pursuit of any Utopia.

If the above is too conspiratorial, one may at least imagine, quite easily imagine, once the genie is out of the bottle about the abc link, the abortion proponents striking the victim pose and demanding more breast cancer research lest an important right become unavailable to them. How long they have suffered under this undue burden, while other research goes on with far greater funding. Where have I heard this before? Oh, Yes, AIDS research. I may be opening a can of worms should I push too many comparisons between AIDS and breast cancer due to the morality issues, but there is a similarity in the desire to find a way to solve the biological side of things so that the lifestyle may continue. A pursuit of a different notion of Freedom than I have. Or am I being unfair? This forum is somewhat liberating in that I am expressing verboten thoughts, as I was well-schooled in PC thought in, well, school.

I hope it is understood I'm all for breast cancer research in its own right, and am only critical of the mindset that seeks to finally put the abortion issue to rest by conquering nature once and for all, through a morning after pill or a cure for the increase in breast cancer due to abc.

It is indeed important that those who choose to seek abortion be made aware of risks like this.

I disagree however that the moral issue will eventually be 'eclipsed' by facts such are presented in this useful posting. After all, the risks of voting for John Kerry were well known, and were publicized. . .but a significant portion of the nation thought it a good idea to vote for him anyway.

It will inevitably come back to a moral argument, as many women will choose to ignore the long term health risk, just as they chose to seek back-alley abortions in days past in spite of significant health risks. As doppelganger so aptly stated, an increase in the likelihood of breast cancer over 100% is indeed possible, but if the basic chance were only a couple percent to begin with, it's still going to be very low.

I'm sorry, but I have to view this as one more bit of Straussian misdirection. This administration has been proven to have zero (that is, NO) respect for facts which run contrary to their political agenda. They feel free to re-write conclusions of cancer studies and the consensus of climate scientists according to how they fit with their preferred course of action (which bears an amazing resemblance to the agenda of their corporate contributors).

If abortion led to a doubling of breast-cancer risk, it would be nearly impossible to hide. The relationship would stand out like a sore thumb as study sizes got bigger. However, in a study of 1,529,512 Danish women who had 370,715 abortions, there was no increase in breast cancer among those who had first-trimester abortions.

The motives of people who claim otherwise are suspect, because:1. They are known to oppose abortion regardless, and2. They are known to be "economical with the truth" or just substitute their religious dogma for fact.

In the case of women with breast cancer, they may be looking for something to blame. Why do parents of autistic children still sue vaccine makers, when the rising rates of autism where thimerosal has long been removed from vaccines has proven that there is no link? They want closure, and a conclusion of idiopathic (or worse, inherited) disease doesn't take away their emotional pain.

But it doesn't mean that abortion or vaccine preservatives have anything to do with harm to people.

As for Leo Strauss, the avowed reason for pushing the "ABC" link is not the real reason. The whole point of Straussian theory is to motivate people to do what the leaders desire by manipulating their beliefs. The beliefs do not have to be true, they just have to promote the goal.

The Bush administration seems to have settled on this as one of its favored tactics. It's bound to work, at least for a while and on some people. The problem is that the beliefs being pushed are, at the core, lies. Most every liar is eventually caught out, and when they are everything they've ever said is discredited - even the true parts. The damage that this can do on the scale of a nation and its polity is incalculable.

Abortion is no picnic, but it is much less dangerous than carrying to term. It is also much less likely to lead to secondary infertility - a factor which should be considered by any teenager who wants to have a family after finishing school. If we want people to have more children, we shouldn't use scare tactics like cancer to frighten them into entering into parenthood under bad circumstances; there are other factors which created this problem (like Social Security), and it makes no sense to go into a tither about abortion without fixing the true causes.

Thanks for coming on with the contrarian viewpoint. It's important that it be addressed. Not that it be heard, because God knows it's the only argument we've ever heard. What you're saying here has been the received wisdom ever since the Guttmacher Foundation made up their statistics about the # of deaths from "illegal" abortions in order to get Roe v Wade passed -- yep, they admit the lies justified the ends.

Your party line is all we've ever heard. In fact, I've preached it myself. I could mouth the words to your arguments as you made them.

I'm not out to get Roe v Wade. I think it will become irrelevant in another generation. I'm just trying to save some teenagers from a life without breasts and ovaries. Not many, you understand. Just the ones at risk because of the BRCA gene involvement and their age at the time of their first abortion.

The Denmark study is flawed. It was sponsored by the ususal suspects. It will take me a long time to dig up all the info because it's a torturous process to find it all. The MSM, with their connections to the breast cancer business and the abortion industry, is not going to make the info easily accessible. Eventually, though I will have enough info to begin to change the conversation. And I will work toward that end.

This is just the first salvo in a war that is personal, up-front, and ongoing. Women have been sold so many lies I can't begin to tackle them all. BUt I can start here and I will.

I can't break the back of the Wicked Witch of the West but I can use my gift of words to begin to break her spell.

This has nothing, naught, and zero to do with this administration or any other. Where did you see me say Bush, Republican, or political? It's from the LEFT and I am attacking it on those pie-in-the-sky notions they have.

Funny, the post started to be simply about the failed policies of the socialist stratum in our political discourse...it wound up on abortion because I stumbled upon the statistics.

I've only just begun, Engineer poet. By the time this is over, I hope to make it a chorus. I may have to climb on Rocinante and go tilting at windmills, but that's okay. It's worth it.

BTW, I have a grand daughter (who will never read this blog, wouldn't know a blog if she fell over it so I'm not worried about her privacy. But for the record, she's 20 and has had two abortions before the age of 18. And I, her grandmother, have had breast cancer. Just so you know my personal bias. I will have to give her this information, and give it to her dad so he'll know, too).

Spare me Strauss. Please. YOu are sooo far off the track there as to be lost in the woods. Women with breast cancer DO NOT want to see a connection with abortion. It is too horrible to contemplate that what you did unwittingly 15 years ago has you in that bed vomiting from chemo and feeling like a freak with your breast gone.

"The Denmark study is flawed. It was sponsored by the ususal suspects. It will take me a long time to dig up all the info because it's a torturous process to find it all. The MSM, with their connections to the breast cancer business and the abortion industry, is not going to make the info easily accessible."

In other words, you wrote a long screed pushing a conclusion that you have no data whatsoever to support - you just know it's true.

You have taken my "long screed" and my comment out of context. If you're going to argue, argue fairly and consistently.

First, Dr. Brind says this of the Denmark study:

the definitive disproof of the ABC link appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine. It was funded by the U.S. Department of Defense and focused exclusively on women in Denmark. Nevertheless, an editorial in the journal by a senior NCI scientist concluded: "In short, a woman need not worry about the risk of breast cancer when facing the difficult decision of whether to terminate a pregnancy."

"Just how, one may reasonably ask, could one single study's result nullify almost half a century's data from dozens of studies?" writes Brind.

But he goes further, pointing out what appears to be a serious flaw in the methodology – the misclassification of some 60,000 women in the study who had abortions but were categorized as not having the procedure.

Yet, Brind contends the raw data of the study still shows a 44 percent increase in breast cancer risk with induced abortion – an increase that did not appear in print in the study "and which was made to disappear with statistical adjustment."

"Despite the worst efforts of scientists, doctors, politicians, journalists and judges to quash public knowledge of the ABC link, the fact that published evidence of it abounds would make it a daunting task to convince a jury of its nonexistence, given a well-presented case."

This is why, for awhile, the litigation against the abortion industry will end in settlements. To go to jury trials will bring the statistics out from under the rock they been shoved under. This is exactly what happened in the tobacco industry: the link to lung cancer was known, it was denied, damage awards were settled out of court, and then the big sharks got in and it was a long, pitched battle to bring the truth to light. Tobacco is still around and still killing people, but at least it's a real choice now.

Here's more from another researcher, this one a breast cancer surgeon,Angela Lanfranchi, M.D.--

Abortion is a causal factor in the development of breast cancer in the same way cigarettes cause lung cancer. Both put the users at higher risk, even though the majority will not be affected. Like cigarettes, which cause lung cancer to form in 15% of those who smoke, abortion causes breast cancer in about 5% of women who have an abortion. This results in approximately 10,000 cases of breast cancer attributable to abortion a year, approximately the same number as is caused by the inheritable BRCA gene. The vast majority of smokers never get lung cancer yet we tell the public not to smoke. Women considering abortion need to know about the abortion breast cancer link (ABC link) so they can give an informed consent. Women who have had an abortion need to know they are at higher risk of showing symptoms of the disease earlier than other women so that they can be screened for breast cancer at an appropriate age.

And what they especially need to know is the link between age at first abortion and the increased risk of later breast cancer. The second doctor says five percent of women who get abortions will get breast cancer. What she doesn't do is break it down for age. 18 and under is going to be waaay more than 5 percent. So are the ones over the age of 30.

This information needs to be out there. I intend to find it and put it out there. The Guttmacher Institute and the Sangers have left a toxic legacy.

BTW, if we could ever get the stats out of China, that would be fascinating: 165,000,000 forced abortions in this last cohort.

So Brind argues against abortion the same as a rabbi argues against pork. Why should anyone who doesn't share their faith listen to either of them? Oh, yes, Brind tries to sound scientific to expand his appeal; it doesn't mean he's doing science, or even being remotely truthful.

As for Lanfranchi, she's a surgeon, not an epidemiologist. Citing her is an appeal to inappropriate authority.

Brind's religious beliefs may drive his interest, I have no idea. It does not make the studies he cites invalid. If he left the academic treadmill in 1996, so what? Does that mean he can't use his training to evaluate epidemiological studies? Is he tainted?

If a rabbi with a PhD in nutrition comes up with some studies that show an increased risk of vascular disease -- or trichinosis -- from ingesting pork, does that make his conclusions invalid?

Ad hominem attacks are simply deflections from the evidence being presented. Thus, the oncology surgeon is quite capable also of reading the results of epidemiological studies and presenting her conclusions. She can then go on to make some educated hypotheses as to why elective abortions might increase the risk. The surgeon who performed my mastectomy had no problem discussing the studies she'd read and formed opinions about. I disagreed with some of her conclusions and still do.

For example, she and the oncology radiologist thought I ought to just have the tumor removed past the margins and opt for radiology and chemo. When you look at the long term effects of radiology, there is a good chance of leukemia down the road. So you get the fun of perhaps metastasis anyway, plus leukemia. Plus the effects of radiation sickness. So I said no thanks to the radiology and the radiologist slammed out of the room. Boy was she mad...I went for a full mastectomy and haven't regretted it.

I increased my chances of survival by less than one percent by undergoing chemo. I went through with it only because I didn't want my family to wring their hands later should the cancer metastasize. But I knew it was pretty much a crock.

Now my doc and the oncologist fret bec. I don't go in for more mammograms because there is some question that mammograms themselves can irritate breast tissue and create small lesions that lead to cancer. Besides, both docs admit the survival rate for metastasis is nil.Knowing earlier is not going to save me.

There is a business here and the customers aren't supposed to ask questions. And it is a very, very large business. So is the abortion racket. If it weren't so tainted, why wouldn't family docs just perform that simple little procedure?

Questioning the rec'd medical opinion is a difficult thing to do. Even with credentials, you get villified by those who have lots to lose.

Brind, et al have taken a politically unpopular stand against the scientistic feminist religion which refuses to look at outcomes. It's the theory that counts. If the evidence is uncomfortable maul the messenger.

It took a long time for there to be any admission that birth control pills had some consequences attached.Same with HRT, from which I probably got my cancer.

There are consequences for behaviors. Abortion is a behavior, an elective procedure that has profound physiological and psychological long-term effects.

To compare it with another social policy we had rammed down our throats, look at Moynihan's report. Here we are, a generation down the road from what he predicted. All his warnings were ridiculed and they came true. Walking monsters is what our social policies created.

It's the same with abortion. Going against the received p.c. wisdom of scientism and feminist ideology will get you nothing but ridicule, opprobrium and ostracism.

Remember what happened to that Jew doctor, Semmelweis, for daring to suggest to the medical community that following the midwives' suggestions about washing your hands between patients could save lives? Their scape-goating drove him to the loony bin. But his practices were eventually implemented and saved lives.

This reminds me of the studies on vaginal cancer. I don't have the statistics anymore; I ran across them while looking at a biography of Anais Nin. She died a very sad and hard death. Vaginal cancer. One of the risk factors for this ugly disease is multiple partners and they think that's what did her in. BTW, it used to be a rare disease but has become more common. As have most reproductive diseases for women. Interesting.

As I said, this is will result in an American solution: litigation. Already two clinics have settled out of court with teenage patients rather than face the exposure of a jury trial. But the tipping point will happen and then it will be too big to settle...

Meanwhile, I intend to inform the younger generation in my family that choices have consequences.

I'm just trying to save some teenagers from a life without breasts and ovaries.

But if what engineer-poet posted in contradiction to your information is credible, this particular risk to teens may not exist.

The Denmark study is flawed. It was sponsored by the ususal suspects.

I'm sorry, but if I'm expected to swallow one set of statistics which has been contradicted by another, I'd darn sure better see some credible evidence discounting that contradiction. Simply stating it was flawed doesn't do it. The whole point of getting your information out in the first place is rendered moot if you cannot argue down dissenting views and information to the satisfaction of your readers.

It will take me a long time to dig up all the info because it's a torturous process to find it all.

I guess it all comes down to how much you really care about convincing people who initially disagree with your views, versus simply publishing information to be read and agreed with by people who already agree with your position on the matter, so that they may all collectively nod their heads, tut tut, and think, "Oh my, would you look at that, we were even more right than we already knew we were"

The MSM, with their connections to the breast cancer business and the abortion industry, is not going to make the info easily accessible.

Look, I dislike the MSM as much as you guys do, but the touting of some semi-conspiratorial and un-elaborated upon connections between them and the 'breast cancer business' reeks of a copout.

"Ad hominem attacks are simply deflections from the evidence being presented."

Noting a person's membership in a group known to harbor strong biases about a subject is not ad-hominem.

There are lots of apolitical climate scientists who say that greenhouse gas emissions will change the climate in drastic and unwelcome ways in this century, unless we stop. There are a number of scientists in the pay of fossil-fuel companies or their foundations who say the opposite. The fact that there are Luddite loonies calling for everyone to abandon machinery and go back to the stone age does not invalidate the work of the apolitical researchers, while the financial interests of others is strong evidence that they are not independent.

You brought up tobacco. Remember how many tobacco-financed researchers said the stuff was just fine for you? I rest my case.

FWIW, I buried my own mother who died of metastasized breast cancer. She never had an abortion, nor AFAIK did she ever take HRT.

"Brind, et al have taken a politically unpopular stand against the scientistic feminist religion...."

Brind's stand is extremely popular with the "right to life" religion, which actually IS a religion. It's darned near fetus-idolatry, with icons and everything.

The problem with this religion is that it won't leave non-believers alone.

"... which refuses to look at outcomes."

How many children grow up fatherless and in poverty because their mothers couldn't manage to get an abortion, or were scared away from it by propaganda such as the above? Why is it wrong to take whatever consequences upon yourself alone instead of bringing a helpless child into it?

It's easy to argue against abortion from your position; pregnancy is no worry for you. Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe") changed her position after she was safe, too.

"So is the abortion racket. If it weren't so tainted, why wouldn't family docs just perform that simple little procedure?"

Oh, let's see:- Because state law requires abortions to be performed in special facilities, or even a hospital.- Because state law requires specialized equipment on hand.- Because good medical practice requires expertise and recurrent training.- Because performing abortions is a good way to get picketed, facilities firebombed, personally harassed or even killed by "pro-life" zealots.

And as long as you're talking about taints, why won't some pharmacists dispense emergency birth control or even regular BC pills? Who made it THEIR business to decide what medicines a woman should be able to get? Why do they make it HARD for a woman who is trying to never have to decide about abortion?

You write about the intolerance of Islam; the same intolerance is directed at doctors who perform abortions by people who are (for mysterious reasons) nevertheless widely recognized as Christians. Nobody calls them mullahs or their edicts fatwas, but the comparison is apt.

"To compare it with another social policy we had rammed down our throats, look at Moynihan's report. Here we are, a generation down the road from what he predicted. All his warnings were ridiculed and they came true."

That was a governmental policy backed up by police power (dwellings of AFDC recipients inspected to be sure there were no men in residence!) and financed by the taxpayer. The relevance of the welfare example to personal decisions paid for with individual's money is what, exactly?

No one is asking you to *swallow* anything. You are free to do your own research and reach your own conclusions. I'm free to do mine and write about them.

Engineer poet disagreed with my reseachers, but he didn't produce anything except deflections re their conclusions because one citation was from a cancer surgeon and the epidemiologist was a Christian and therefore suspect.

The epidemiologist in question put together years of information from many studies. He came to the conclusion that those who have been urging abortions for teenagers -- in the name of right to privacy and sexual freedom -- have not been telling the whole truth.

As the oncologist said, we're talking about an associated risk comparable with the risk associated with smoking and lung cancer. What is remarkable -- among many remarkable things -- is the abortion proponents' denial and obsfucation, a song-and-dance much like the one the tobacco industry put on for years re tobacco.

Based on what I've seen so far, adolescent girls need far more information than they're given. And if you don't think the abortion lobby isn't politically-driven then you haven't been listening to them. NARAL is simply whacky.

Yashmak when you say I guess it all comes down to how much you really care about convincing people who initially disagree with your views

then you've missed my point. And my repetitions aren't going to clarify it for you;it becomes apparent that we're talking past one another.

My own bias: for many years, I had no problem with abortion. It wasn't good, but it was the lesser of two evils. In other words, I bought into the program the feminists were selling and that Engineer Poet repeated here, right down to abortion being less dangerous than pregnancy.

I also bought into some of their other material, like no-fault divorce and the quality of time you spend with your kids is what's important. And then the studies of divorced kids started showing up and the studies of aggressive, impulsive, bullying daycare kids began to be supressed.

None of those studies were believed at first, either. In fact, I read a lot of disagreement about the politics behind the studies but when I looked into them it turned out the funders had been looking for and hoping for good outcomes. Didn't happen...but the MSM didn't talk about those findings, either. You have to go to the specialty journals written for professionals who have to figure out how to treat these children...it's an eye-opening experience. I had to read them because I was a social-worker trying to figure out how to reach the unreachable, too.

The "abortion-is-freedom" ranks right up there with "daycare-is-quality-care-and-all-children-need-to-benefit-from-socializing." It's also of a piece with no-fault divorce. The results are in: no-fault means no child support and very little sight of dad. And so child-support collection has become another business, like daycare and abortion. All market-driven enterprises.

These policies, laws, beliefs, all have consequences and most of them have had poor outcomes. We are reaping a sad harvest and leftist-driven beliefs about abortion is the least of it.

I could draw up a list for you of all the medical procedures that were performed with great enthusiasm and sold to a gullible public for years before they started tip-toeing from the room and turning out the light. Are you old enough to remember when lobotomies were being sold as a panacea for various ills? Some of those poor victims may yet be alive in some back ward.

Just how much do you *know* about breast cancer treatment beyond what you've read in the MSM? If you have opinions on the subject, how have you come to form them? Have you read the studies? Been a subject in one? Looked at the protocols? Whose statistics do you follow? In which country?

The current "gold standard" treatment for breast cancer in this country leaves much to be desired.But that's not my point(s).

My point is the Leftist-driven politically correct opinions that have sucked up all the air in the room. No dissenting voices are permitted or they will be called names and driven from the room.

And for their suffocating belief system a lot of people will suffer because they put these programs in place.

My point is that young women need more information than they're getting. And they need it from a variety of sources, not just the local abortion clinic.

You brought up tobacco. Remember how many tobacco-financed researchers said the stuff was just fine for you? I rest my case.

Duh...that's exactly what I *said* -- there is a moral equivalency between the lying tobacco companies and the lying abortion business: both of them claimed their product was just fine. Maybe someday the Guttmacher Institute will start sponsoring NASCAR races, too, trying to buy back the public's opinion.

Engineer Poet said--

It's easy to argue against abortion from your position; pregnancy is no worry for you. Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe") changed her position after she was safe, too .

I give up. You are deaf. I am not against abortion. You have a hammer and you're just bound to make it all a nail, aren't you? Gotta drive all your points home, huh?

Well, this comment is below the belt and disgusting. so I'll answer you in turn because you have worked so hard to deserve it.

Just how do *you* know your mother never had an abortion, sir? What business of yours was her reproductive life? In fact, her experiences might even make the case had we all the "facts."

How dare you! Making either of these arguments -- about your mother's sexual health or mine -- in a public forum demonstrates poor boundaries.

If you post in the comments section of this post again I will simply delete you. That is also something you have worked to earn.

How many children grow up fatherless and in poverty because their mothers couldn't manage to get an abortion, or were scared away from it by propaganda such as the above? Why is it wrong to take whatever consequences upon yourself alone instead of bringing a helpless child into it?

And here we go again. This is the ultimate, and ultimaely evil argument; "Better dead, better chopped into pieces than be unwanted and fatherless." I posted on this before and may have to do so again, asking how many people born into "poor" circumstances but now breathing are going to agree with engineer-poet's prescription? This, out of all arguments for abortion, is the one that raises my hackles most.

I suggest you look up the word "fairness." Engineer Poet had plenty of bandwidth here and he abused it.

The responsibility and perquisite of any blog administrator is to address commenters, listen, and then respond. I did that, repeatedly.

When it became apparent that he'd arrived on scene with his preformed agenda, and then used his mother's and my own reproductive histories to make his points, the conversation had ceased to be a dialogue.

He -- and others who feel strongly about issues -- can always hoist up their own blogs and those who are interested can come and create a dialogue.

Notice, my dear, that I did not delete him for being a troll pest, I simply told him not to comment on this particular post anymore. What there was to say had been spoken already.

And if this isn't clear...ah, well. There is a lot of bandwidth out there, just waiting to be used. Go start a Sue Donny Mouse blog. You could even call it, say, "Donnybrook -- So Sue Me..."

or something like that. By all means make the first post on fairness. Use me as an example of the opposite.

you asked Could you write up a post regarding this issue? Or post some links in this thread? I'd be appreciative. Thanks.

I have only just begun to research this. As you can see from the comments generated here, there is more heat than light surrounding this subject.

If a person is pro-anti-either or whatever on the subject of abortion, someone is waiting in the wings to bop you on the head with their pet theories as to why the information you present is wrong, immoral, unscientific, or just disagreeable...sooo, here's what:

email me (I looked at your profile and didn't find one) and I'll let you know what I've found. Or, if you don't want to get into it, try googling around and see what you come up with. If that doesn't work, I'm always here.

~D

Believe me, this is a loaded subject. I'm not looking forward to having to tell my grand daughter the bad news.

Dymphna, you better be sure before you do that. Filling your daughter with dread and perhaps driving her to have her breasts removed would be a tragedy unless it was very well justified.

I don't believe it. There are women, including a friend of mine, who has had dozens of miscarriages (she has uterine fibroids). If abortion caused breast cancer, then there would be an association between fibroids and breast cancer as well.

There is not an association.http://www.medhelp.org/forums/BreastCancer/messages/3057.html

So you can rest easy for your daughter, and save your harsh words for the people who are trying to scare women with fake "medical" research.

Dymphna, you better be sure before you do that. Filling your daughter with dread and perhaps driving her to have her breasts removed would be a tragedy unless it was very well justified.

#1,I did not say this was my daughter. My daughter is dead. This is *her* daughter, my granddaughter. If her mom was still alive, I would simply turn the info over to her. Instead I am going to give it to her dad and if he wants me to talk to her I will.

#2. For heaven's sake, she's not going to have her breasts removed. I don't believe I'm having this conversation. Haven't you *read* what I've been saying???? She has a highly increased risk for BRCA down the road because I had breast cancer and she had an abortion before age 18. She needs to know why these two factors play a role (as does her smoking and her use of birth control pills). Knowledge is power, and she can make more informed decisions to protect against the risk -- notice I say "risk" and not certainty -- of trouble down the road._______________

I don't believe it. There are women, including a friend of mine, who has had dozens of miscarriages (she has uterine fibroids). If abortion caused breast cancer, then there would be an association between fibroids and breast cancer as well.

Your assertions show your lack of reading of the materials available.Spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) are often associated with a much lower hormonal assault on breast tissue than a normal pregnancy initiates. It is when -- in a normal pregnancy -- this huge hormonal wave reaches immature breast tissue that the risk occurs. As the pregnancy continues on to term, the breast tissue matures to Stage 3 lobules and the levels of hormones also recede. The lobules even get a little protection for the future from the whole process. But an interrupted process leaves them vulnerable later. "Immature" means breast tissue that has not experienced a full-term pregnancy. You can have immature tissue in old age if you've never had a full-term pregnancy...thus your friend's fibroids have a protective function in a way. The hormonal drive never kicks in so she is spared having the full monty.

I know many women who have had abortions. They don't have breast cancer, nor are they likely to. They have an increased risk -- sometimes a greatly increased risk depending on other factors -- that they need to be aware of. Fortunately for the ones I know, they didn't have those abortions as teenagers and they don't have the BRCA gene. And they don't smoke. Some of them took birth control pills, some of them used HRT...it's a crap shoot, as I said.

I also know people who smoked all their lives and didn't die of lung cancer. Lived to ripe old age, too, while they smoked unfiltered Camels. So does that mean smoking isn't a big factor in developing lung cancer?

Anecdotal evidence is comforting, but I still gave up cigarettes. Why take the chance? Since my father died of lung cancer and smoked, my chances are probably higher than normal, but c'est la vie. ____There is not an association.http://www.medhelp.org/forums/BreastCancer/messages/3057.html

Believe whatever floats your boat. And be sure to read only those forums which already agree with what you want to believe or you might scare yourself. _______________So you can rest easy for your daughter, and save your harsh words for the people who are trying to scare women with fake "medical" research.

Are you a medical researcher? Do you have the credentials to decide what is 'fake' and what is 'true'? How much reading have you done on the subject? Do you know the agenda of the persons putting out their expertise for you to follow?

Since you see fit to offer advice --based on what level of expertise you haven't said -- I'll offer you three words of warning when it comes to medical "knowledge": follow the money.

If you need to have that translated, talk to a few medical researchers. It's as fierce and political a field as anything in Washington.

And if you want to see what women with the BRCA 1 or 2 gene face, just google "BRCA gene elective mastectomy"...now *those* are women who face some ugly choices.

You have some very large unexamined hypotheses there. You could try looking at what they might be.

Jeez,I have not read your (award winning) post and I will not tonite: I read the COMMENTS and it is now 3 am!But as the Guvernator sez,I'll be back, 'cause I have questions, namely about all the chemo and radiation Laura Ingraham is goint through when it was found by doc, not by x-ray. Tiny it was, but she is angry because she did not do her once a month checkup.Cancer Sucks. I lost my best friend here to an extremely rare (for males) form of cancer. Prior to that he was a lot more fit and healthy than I. I just lost an uncle by marriage in his 80's whose mom over 100 is still alive.He also was very healthy, and then quickly taken.(Both my friend who had the "very best" at Stanford, and uncle took the debillitating treatmeants for naught... makes one wonder.)---Now a nice point:My wife's gynecologist.He recommended hormones some years ago. (Osteoporosis - Fosmax plus Citrical does the trick.)She said no thanks, she was worried about effects....when effects were shown by research, he says:Well, you were right!Should be a Nobel Prize for docs like that!---More darkness:In college, our friend and next door neighbor had uterine fibroids:In those days, they guessed massive hormones were a good idea:She died before reaching 30.---Wife's Sister was the sizzling hot blonde w/ the hip new lifestyle being promoted at all the colleges:Gone from the above mentioned STD related cancer....and I thought Truepeer's comments were troubling!Over but not out,...yet....hope you have some ideas about why Laura might have had to go through all that for a tiny little thing.Does that mean they know it has metasisized?(too late for spell check.)Congrats on the award:You deserve it if only for responding to comments!!!

> Spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) are often associated with a much lower hormonal assault on breast tissue than a normal pregnancy initiates.

OK, obvious question arises -- does this suggest that the "Day After" is not an issue? One would presume that this more closely resembles a miscarriage than an abortion which occurs at a much later time.

My observation in general re: this issue -- I think it all comes down to what Michael Crichton notes as "The Politicization of Science as Policy". Read: Aliens Cause Global Warming

Science 100 years ago was far less central to our day to day life, and, as such, was left alone as far as social policy went. With the 20th century, more and more science and technology intruded into our daily lives, and, more and more, social policy began to be driven by it.

This has led to an unfortunate positive feedback effect, as science drives policy, the policy begins to drive the science... often, unfortunately, into arenas where it is no longer science.

I don't know if what Dymphna claims is true. I don't know what the pro-choicers say is true. Being male, I have little direct real personal concern over that specific matter, but I DO care significantly about the underlying problem, which is how do we get politics out of science? This isn't just a funding source matter, really -- the science could be just as distorted by money from corps as it is by money from governments.

There needs to be a lot greater push to isolate the funding for studies from the biases of its source in modern science. A study which is not undertaken as a double-blind, wherein the hired researchers are, as much as possible, unaware of what it is they are being asked to test, needs to be looked askance at and understood as "likely to be fundamentally flawed".

The casual citizen gets whipsawed -- this study says one thing, another the exact opposite. Which one to trust?

This has an important long term effect in that it causes people to lose faith in the Scientific Method, which, thanks to "gummint eddication", few of them grasp at all in the first place.

This needs to be fixed, and soon. A loss of faith in science will doom this nation (and possibly mankind) to a new dark ages.

The system does not allow for reduced science understanding, it needs policy makers to grasp more about science than ever before. At some point, some stupid decision is going to occur which ravages the people. The body count is going to be unprecedented in human history.

A minor side example of the above would tie into the sale of antibacterial soaps.

The CDC has come out against their casual usage, when, in fact, the FDA or whoever it is that controls them should be doing everything short of banning them.

The long term effect of using them is going to be to produce strains of bacteria resistant to those antibacterial agent -- much as misuse and overuse of penicillin and subsequent AB's has resulted in resistant bacteria which ignore all the less toxic antibacterials.

For the household, most people should just use normal, non-AB soaps. If you want to really clean, then a mild solution of chlorox and soap is more than amply sufficient.

About the only people who should use AB soap are households with people who have been using immunosuppressants for various health reasons.